Is The Witcher 2 still worth playing?

[Clay]

And how much of the plot of 1 should I know before playing? I know that Geralt has amnesia in the first game (and I think most of the way through 2 as well?) and that the game basically revolves around Geralt tracking down a group of bad guys who ransacked Kaer Morhen and stole the equipment used to make new Witchers. I believe throughout the game you're repeatedly given the chance to side with humans or non-humans in some sort of war, or you can also maintain neutrality like witchers are supposed to.

I've been on a pretty big Witcher kick recently. I finally played Blood and Wine over the last couple weeks (it's as incredible as I'd heard, definitely the best DLC I've ever played), I watched the Netflix series (which I thought was garbage, I was barely paying attention by the end), I just bought the first book, and despite already playing through it three times I think I'm going to go ahead an start the main campaign of 3 again.

I'm playing around with the idea of playing through 2 first. Is it worth it? I've heard 1 feels so archaic now that it's not really worth playing. I've also heard that in 2 it's pretty obvious that CDPR didn't yet have the budget to fully realize the game they clearly wanted to make, and that it's clear that 3 is when their resources finally caught up with their ambition. Is 2 still worth playing though?

 

[Chirotera]

Absolutely. It's only overshadowed because the Witcher 3 is so god tier. It's much more tightly focused than that, not open world, and linear, but it's still a very very good title.

Geralt having amnesia is just about all you need to know. There's some character and relationships and such that will flesh things out a bit more, but don't really detract from not knowing the overall picture. It kind of helps, too, because if Geralt doesn't know - you really won't know either.

 

[ThreePi]

I played Witcher 1 a couple years after it released and it took me a few attempts to actually get the hang of it, but yeah it was mechanically archaic when it released and would be really tough to get into now.

Witcher 2 should still be pretty easy to get in to. Combat isn't as smooth as Witcher 3, but I was never too troubled by it. The game itself is somewhat linear and not at all an open world game like Witcher 3 though there are some major branching options that I'd almost say is worth playing through twice to see them both.

 

[Artdayne]

I don't really know what your tolerance is for jank but Witcher 1 is basically even with Witcher 3 for me personally in terms of quality and Witcher 2 is definitely more modern and had a much bigger budget, though its a shorter game than both Witcher 1 and 3. If you don't want to play Witcher 1 then Witcher 2 is still definitely worth playing just know that the combat is probably the worst in the series. I wouldn't say its bad but you might consider doing a bit of research into a couple skills that are good to level into because they will make certain things a lot more tolerable.

 

[Astandahl]

Yeah. The combat is completely fucked (is not just bad but broken on multiple levels) but everything else is top tier.

 

[Infernostew]

Yes! All of them are!

 

[Camwi]

It's fucking awesome, so yes. Not quite masterpiece level like The Witcher 3, but yes play it.

 

[Pall Mall]

I always tried to play it but the combat is really strange and immensely put me off. If you can deal with that the game is supposedly very good.

 

[Kabukimurder]

Witcher 2 is definitly worth playing for the story, and backstory to 3. It's got some of the most uneven difficultys in any game i've played, so i would almost recommend to turn it down to easiest and just enjoy the story.

 

[Ruisu]

Story is pretty good, main disappointment will be that the Witcher 3's plot is not a direct continuation of the plot threads from 2.

 

[Rover_]

yes, very much. the plot and choices are top notch to this day. the game is very memorable.

 

[gitrektali]

It's a pretty good game, but the combat is really bad.

 

[TheBeardedDM]

The Witcher 2 is dope. The story is dense in politics and it is mature and engaging. The combat is more rusty than W3's but its enjoyable. It is also shorter than W3 (30h-40h ish considering a balanced run) but it is a must play imho. W1 aged not so good (lots of copy pasta npc, combat is clunky & weird) but the story is really engaging.

 

[Ryszard]

Also interested in the answers. Thinking about ditching next gen and buying a PC and one of the first things would be playing through The Witcher series.

 

[gdt]

Witcher 2 is a classic.

 

[Vommy]

Yes. It is great.

 

[KrillinLikeAVillan]

Absolutely it is and always has been a brilliant game.

 

[JohnnyToonami]

It's still my favorite of the 3 by a wide margin. Witcher 3 basically ignoring the games story was bad.

 

[iksenpets]

The Witcher 2 is really cool. It does really interesting stuff with branching narrative and in a lot of ways I think the more linear structure works better for the narrative stuff than the open-world sprawl of 3.

 

[Deleted member 76797]

the combat is a little rough but it's a great game. i like the writing better than tw3.

 

[ASilentProtagonist]

Absolutely. The best story in the franchise, the two paths are so different from each other.

 

[silva1991]

Yes it's very good.

 

[Rendering...]

Yeah, the writing's great. It's worth doing two playthroughs to see both branching paths after the first part. Just make a save right before the key decision.

Play on easy if you want to blaze through the awkward combat.

 

[In Amber Clad]

Absolutely worth playing. I think the only one I'd caveat these days is TW1, but it's also still worth playing. It might even be worth playing just to hear Believe play over the end credits :D

TW2 is an excellent, excellent game. I would say maybe read up on the plot (or look for YouTube summaries?) of 1 though. There will be characters in 2 that will feel like old friends I've you've experienced 1 first.

 

[daninthemix]

I aggressively hated it (even preferred Witcher 1) but YMMV.

 

[haotshy]

I played through W2 for the first time a couple weeks ago and I enjoyed it despite my gripes with it. However, I can't stress just how bad the combat is. My enjoyment increased after I switched to easy mode just so I could get through battles faster. The game is also quite jank.

Still, the story is interesting, and while as someone new to the universe, I found the nitty gritty of the political stuff hard to follow because the game assumes you've played the first game and know names and places that haven't been properly introduced in Witcher 2, I was able to follow Geralt's quest and enjoy it despite not fully understanding all the political stuff going on.

 

[Deleted member 34169]

I played 3 first and it probably hurt my enjoyment of 2. I liked it, but it's about 5 steps back in terms of gameplay. I never played 1 but I think that just a story summary is good enough.

 

[Adrifi]

It's better than 3.

 

[shintoki]

Team Vernon Fucking Roche

Absolutely worth playing

 

[Deleted member 11413]

It's an ambitious game and a big improvement over the first.

 

[rumbling]

No not really. The game is good - but there is plenty of better games out there.

 

[Deleted member 49482]

I don't know that I'll be about to play it anytime soon (PC specs not good enough and no Microsoft consoles), though I'm somewhat interested to do so.

However, I know there are questions you answer at the beginning of Witcher 3 regarding circumstances that occurred in Witcher 2. Does anyone know where I can read a concise overview of the background regarding those questions? Maybe there is a good YouTube overview?

 

[lightchris]

Absolutely. It's just more linear, other than that the gameplay is at least serviceable and story and dialogues are top notch.

The first game is still perfectly playable too by the way, even if you don't enjoy the combat. The main quest unfolds in interesting ways, among the best of all games I've played.

 

[KomandaHeck]

Definitely. It has the most interesting main quest of the trilogy.

 

[Vulcano's Assistant]

The antagonists are a highlight for sure. They were fantastic and may be the key point that puts the main quest over TW3's less interesting bad guys. Arguably not as great as Hearth of Stone's, however.

 

[No Depth]

For sure. Much of the W2 lore and narrative plotting directly impacts the state of the world and characters in W3. You will get a LOT more out of W3 having experienced it. (But its not required)

Also HIGHLY recommended going with 'Iorveth's' path in W2. You will get much more pertinent lore and world info from it than the other choice, and you will appreciate having such direct interactions with the coven of witches, especially as you move onto W3.

It does also help to at least read a wiki or primer on the plot of W1(and watch the ending cutscene on youtube prior to starting W2). It's a big ask to play through it as well, and I do recommend doing so as W1 is a fine enough game, but its the least necessary if just wanting the lore bits. Still, W2 does begin directly following the events of W1, much of which are given during its long tutorial phase, but at least having read or watched a bit on it first helps.

 

[chrisypoo]

It's the best of the trilogy in my eyes, by quite a measure.

So yeah.

 

[Emmz]

I don't really know what your tolerance is for jank but Witcher 1 is basically even with Witcher 3 for me personally in terms of quality and Witcher 2 is definitely more modern and had a much bigger budget, though its a shorter game than both Witcher 1 and 3. If you don't want to play Witcher 1 then Witcher 2 is still definitely worth playing just know that the combat is probably the worst in the series. I wouldn't say its bad but you might consider doing a bit of research into a couple skills that are good to level into because they will make certain things a lot more tolerable.

Click to shrink...

In the words of Joseph Anderson: it's the Janksgiving Day Parade.

 

[Mentalist]

It's a good game with a bizarre difficulty curve. You start out taking 200% bonus damage from backstabs, as the game's opening section pits you against multiple groups of enemies in tight quarters. Oh, and if you fail a QTE, you have to do the fights all over again.

Your first 2 skill points are basically spent to remove this handicap; Once you do that, and then acquire a few additional skills (such as block arrows- the ONE skill I had to re-learn in EVERY witcher game - and,eventually, riposte), then the game's combat becomes fairly trivial.

it's worth playing for the bold narrative choices of basically keeping half the game away from you based on your Act 1 choice; and the quality of side-quests. It's disappointing that Witcher 3 makes it clear there's only one canonical "right" choice though.

 

[DaciaJC]

Yes, absolutely. It sounds like you have the basic gist of the first game's story - frankly, most of it is irrelevant for TW2 and 3. Just know that Geralt suffered from amnesia and is still somewhat recovering with the "help" of Triss, an old friend; there is pretty severe tension between humans and non-human rebels (Scoia'tael); and Geralt and King Foltest, leader of Temeria, know each other pretty well, Geralt having accomplished rather significant missions for him in the past.

The story and writing is fantastic, the combat ... substantially less so (and I say that as someone who thinks the complaints about TW3's combat are heavily exaggerated).

 

[GillianSeed79]

I actually prefer the Witcher 2 more than the Witcher 3 and have finished it multiple times. You might feel lost at first but it's a self contained story/stories. It's totally awesome and my favorite Witcher game.

 

[Bakercat]

Played a few months ago for first time after playing witcher 1. Gameplay is an improvement over 1, but the story isn't as good as 1 imo. Definitely worth playing.

 

[skeezx]

it's pretty good, i'm kind of surprised to the extent it gets swept under the rug these days

gave my 360 version version to a co-worker who is deep into the books/show/withcher 3 and he was under the impression the game came out like 20 years ago on PC or something

 

[Clay]

It's a good game with a bizarre difficulty curve. You start out taking 200% bonus damage from backstabs, as the game's opening section pits you against multiple groups of enemies in tight quarters. Oh, and if you fail a QTE, you have to do the fights all over again.

Your first 2 skill points are basically spent to remove this handicap; Once you do that, and then acquire a few additional skills (such as block arrows- the ONE skill I had to re-learn in EVERY witcher game - and,eventually, riposte), then the game's combat becomes fairly trivial.

it's worth playing for the bold narrative choices of basically keeping half the game away from you based on your Act 1 choice; and the quality of side-quests. It's disappointing that Witcher 3 makes it clear there's only one canonical "right" choice though.

Click to shrink...

What's the canonical choice? It sounds like the two paths are pretty different, I'm planning on saving before the choice and just playing them back-to-back. I'd like to do the canonical one second since I'll probably starting replaying 3 shortly after.

 

[leng jai]

On PC absolutely. Just put it on easy if the combat is too janky.

 

[JustinH]

I found the controls really hard to get a grasp on. Like I had to play the entire game on easy (just wanted o see the story ) before I felt like I got a handle on them. I was able to play it in "Dark" mode, or whatever they call hard," immediately after though.

I still think it's a fantastic game though, and well worth experiencing.

 

[Fendajaz]

I didn't enjoy it very much. First game is better. Kinda forced myself to finish it.

 

[TheRed]

Witcher 2 is awesome. So yes.

 

[HStallion]

Outside of being a shorter experience and the combat not being great, The Witcher 2 is to me, the best in the series. The story and characters alone shit on everything in the third game if you ask me. Letho >>>>> The fucking Wild Hunt

 

[defaltoption]

Yup it's an amazing game, I know a lot of people who actually like it more then 3 but I personally prefer 3. 1 is the only game that is hard to actually get into.